Strike questions

[wayman]

Back a few years, I believe it was in the early 90's, I had a reservation from Chicago to Denver for myself and my granddaughter. I was going to my neice's wedding. The day I was supposed to leave was the first day of a 2 day Amtrak strike. Amtrak didn't do anything for me. The day I was supposed to leave, I went to the travel agency, which had made the reservation, and they gave me a check. I went to the bank and cashed it and my dear daughter drove us to the wedding. We made it to Crested Butte on time, but it was really hectic.

Wait a sec, the press release quoted in the other thread said "Amtrak has never had a strike in its 36-year history." I'm confused--there has never been a strike, but there was a strike?

 

[MrFSS]

If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?

 

[wayman]

If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?

Pretty sure it would happen at 12:01 AM on February 1st, immediately after the "no-strike" period ends.

 

[sportbiker]

I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned invocation of the Taft-Hartley act to stop a strike. Would it not be applicable in this situation? Please pardon my ignorance.

Since you're running for prez, you should know this stuff. Don't blow the election now!

 

[Rafi]

If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?

Pretty sure it would happen at 12:01 AM on February 1st, immediately after the "no-strike" period ends.

So that begs the question, what happens to trains that are on the move at 12:01 AM? Grinding halt? Passengers stuck on the right of way until the strike's over?

Rafi

 

[had8ley]

If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?

Pretty sure it would happen at 12:01 AM on February 1st, immediately after the "no-strike" period ends.

So that begs the question, what happens to trains that are on the move at 12:01 AM? Grinding halt? Passengers stuck on the right of way until the strike's over?

Rafi

Rafi;

I can only relate what the freight railroads do as I never remember any Amtrak strikes per se. Picket lines go up at 12:01 a.m. and those working on the property HAVE to stay until the Hours of Service (hog law) catches them and then they are free to leave. I can remember one strike in 1970 that a switch foreman asked for a rib-eye and a box of cigars for his meal period as we were forbidden to leave the property to eat. Sure enough, here comes the trainmaster with the rib eye and the box of cigars. Stupid me, I just ordered a 49 cent hamburger not knowing that the company had to foot the bill.

 

[PRR 60]

If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?

Pretty sure it would happen at 12:01 AM on February 1st, immediately after the "no-strike" period ends.

The date is arbitrary. The first time a strike could be called is February 1, but that does not mean it will be called then. If they are good, card-carrying union leaders, they will want to use the element of surprise to their advantage. So look for the strike date to come and go with just threats.

I also do not think that a total, system-wide strike is a given. They could call sporadic one and two day strikes of parts of the system that would impact Amtrak (and Amtrak passengers) but would not impart the severe secondary harm that that would force a legislative remedy. The flight attendants union even trade-marked a name for this tactic: CHAOS; Create Havoc Around Our System. That would be an interesting turn. The workers are still paid, the system still runs, but no one knows where or when a local stoppage will occur. But given the unique situation involving Amtrak, maybe that is not the best route.

Unlike most companies that actually make money, Amtrak financially benefits from a strike. The revenue lost from ticket sales is more than offset by the savings realized by not paying the represented workers. Strictly on a financial basis, a strike is good for Amtrak, and a long strike is even better. Now, don't get me wrong, there are lots of reasons that a strike is bad for Amtrak, but the single incentive that forces most strikes to an end - immediate finances - is not present with an Amtrak strike on the management side of the table. The workers would be hurt, but Amtrak would see the bottom line improve each day the strike continues.

If a strike occurs, I think the only way it is settled is with legislative intervention. Then Congress is responsible for the settlement and will have to find a way to pay for it. Given that Amtrak has little reason to give the union anything, a big bad disruptive strike may be the way to go to force an imposed contract that would likely be better than what Amtrak would offer at the bargaining table.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Since the cooling off periond ends on January 30 the first day of strike could be January 31st.

Trains already on road would continou till next major station and stop.

Technically that is.

 

[Everydaymatters]

Wait a sec, the press release quoted in the other thread said "Amtrak has never had a strike in its 36-year history." I'm confused--there has never been a strike, but there was a strike?

As I recall, it was a "strike". I have since heard that it was the only strike in Amtrak's history. Maybe they are now calling it a walkout or something else so they don't have to use the "S" word???

I'll see if I can find out the date and get back to you'all.

Betty

 

[VentureForth]

The more I read about the issues, the more I can't help but think that the unions are the ones that are going to kill Amtrak - not Bush, not Congress, not Management.

There are too many unions. There is a power struggle here, and it's not in Amtrak management or administration. All these unions want to protect to the bitter end their own brotherhood without regard to the betterment of the larger picture. Window washer can't vaccumm the floor because it would violate the window washer's union. Lathe operator can't change a lightbulb because of the machine shop union.

I don't think that this will ever change. I'm not anti-union. They serve a time and place, but I think that they have also had their fair share of destroying companies, too.

 

[had8ley]

The more I read about the issues, the more I can't help but think that the unions are the ones that are going to kill Amtrak - not Bush, not Congress, not Management.
There are too many unions. There is a power struggle here, and it's not in Amtrak management or administration. All these unions want to protect to the bitter end their own brotherhood without regard to the betterment of the larger picture. Window washer can't vaccumm the floor because it would violate the window washer's union. Lathe operator can't change a lightbulb because of the machine shop union.

I don't think that this will ever change. I'm not anti-union. They serve a time and place, but I think that they have also had their fair share of destroying companies, too.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope you don't bring the chain saw. Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago? I can't imagine a factory waiting that long for someone to sign a contract to produce goods. My point being the unionists (a very dirty word in some circles) have been delivering a service for eight years with no contract in hand. Would you want to be left hanging out to dry for that amount of time? No need to worry about the unions shutting down Amtrak; the president of our country will see to that. One question I will ask is; "Just how many managers at Amtrak make in excess of 100 grand a year?" And when was the last time THEY got a raise or bonus ???

 

[haolerider]

The more I read about the issues, the more I can't help but think that the unions are the ones that are going to kill Amtrak - not Bush, not Congress, not Management.
There are too many unions. There is a power struggle here, and it's not in Amtrak management or administration. All these unions want to protect to the bitter end their own brotherhood without regard to the betterment of the larger picture. Window washer can't vaccumm the floor because it would violate the window washer's union. Lathe operator can't change a lightbulb because of the machine shop union.

I don't think that this will ever change. I'm not anti-union. They serve a time and place, but I think that they have also had their fair share of destroying companies, too.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope you don't bring the chain saw. Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago? I can't imagine a factory waiting that long for someone to sign a contract to produce goods. My point being the unionists (a very dirty word in some circles) have been delivering a service for eight years with no contract in hand. Would you want to be left hanging out to dry for that amount of time? No need to worry about the unions shutting down Amtrak; the president of our country will see to that. One question I will ask is; "Just how many managers at Amtrak make in excess of 100 grand a year?" And when was the last time THEY got a raise or bonus ???

I don't know how many management staff make over $100k, but that really has nothing to do with raises. For the past 8 years, the only raises given to management, in general, have been COLA - anywhere from 2.2%-3.5% - and no bonuses.

 

[Everydaymatters]

Wait a sec, the press release quoted in the other thread said "Amtrak has never had a strike in its 36-year history." I'm confused--there has never been a strike, but there was a strike?

As I recall, it was a "strike". I have since heard that it was the only strike in Amtrak's history. Maybe they are now calling it a walkout or something else so they don't have to use the "S" word???

I'll see if I can find out the date and get back to you'all.

Betty

I found it. I stand corrected - it was not a strike. It was a lockout:

"Following a 25-day cooling-off period that ended June 24, 1992, the Machinists struck csx, one of the major rail carriers. The strike resulted in the shutdown of the entire freight rail system when the remaining 39 carriers involved in the dispute locked out their employees, claiming they could not operate with the csx down."

The above is from "The Monthly Labor Review" Jan 1993

 

[Guest]

As an airline employee, I can say that in other areas of the transportation industry there have been pay CUTS for both union and management employees.

Asking for back wages seems a little far-reaching.

 

[AlanB]

Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago? I can't imagine a factory waiting that long for someone to sign a contract to produce goods. My point being the unionists (a very dirty word in some circles) have been delivering a service for eight years with no contract in hand. Would you want to be left hanging out to dry for that amount of time? No need to worry about the unions shutting down Amtrak; the president of our country will see to that.

On this I agree with you Jay, it has taken far too long to get to this point. Since all of us are on the outside looking in the window, I'm not sure whose being too inflexible, Amtrak or the unions. Personally I suspect that both at one time or another have been too close minded, but again I have no proof.

Personally I'm of the mind that Amtrak needs to be given or find the money for the back pay, but at least some work rule concessions need to be given up by the unions to get that. The system only works when both sides give and take. The PEB is far too lopsided in my opinion, so I hope that either the unions and Amtrak can move past that or that any imposed solution is fairer.

 

[GG-1]

Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago?

On this I agree with you Jay, it has taken far too long to get to this point. Since all of us are on the outside looking in the window, I'm not sure whose being too inflexible, Amtrak or the unions. Personally I suspect that both at one time or another have been too close minded, but again I have no proof.

Personally I'm of the mind that Amtrak needs to be given or find the money for the back pay, but at least some work rule concessions need to be given up by the unions to get that. The system only works when both sides give and take. The PEB is far too lopsided in my opinion, so I hope that either the unions and Amtrak can move past that or that any imposed solution is fairer.

Aloha

I have been a member of several different Unions since around 1962 when I first worked at Disneyland, Anaheim. I Currently completed my term as a senior officer in a theater union.

I Completely Agree with Alan Both Sides need to move, together, for everyone's progress. The lack of "togetherness" in my opinion is the major reason we have seen so many comments about bad workers, and management, with Amtrak. There just isn't anything that is one sided.

 

[had8ley]

I don't know how many management staff make over $100k, but that really has nothing to do with raises. For the past 8 years, the only raises given to management, in general, have been COLA - anywhere from 2.2%-3.5% - and no bonuses.

Ah, there's the rub, mon ami. Management has EVERYTHING to do with raises. Just one simple question; Just who is going to have a harder time coping with $3 plus a gallon gasoline and $5 a gallon milk~ the $30,000-40,000 coach cleaner or the 100 K plus manager ???

 

[had8ley]

Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago?

On this I agree with you Jay, it has taken far too long to get to this point. Since all of us are on the outside looking in the window, I'm not sure whose being too inflexible, Amtrak or the unions. Personally I suspect that both at one time or another have been too close minded, but again I have no proof.

Personally I'm of the mind that Amtrak needs to be given or find the money for the back pay, but at least some work rule concessions need to be given up by the unions to get that. The system only works when both sides give and take. The PEB is far too lopsided in my opinion, so I hope that either the unions and Amtrak can move past that or that any imposed solution is fairer.

Aloha

I have been a member of several different Unions since around 1962 when I first worked at Disneyland, Anaheim. I Currently completed my term as a senior officer in a theater union.

I Completely Agree with Alan Both Sides need to move, together, for everyone's progress. The lack of "togetherness" in my opinion is the major reason we have seen so many comments about bad workers, and management, with Amtrak. There just isn't anything that is one sided.

I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Alan's analysis. Having sat at the table both sides get plenty dumb and outright stupid "just 'cause they can." But in defense of the unionist isn't a sign of good management the willingness to negotiate? Don't take this as one sided~ I know you could break bricks on my thick head BUT management poured the mold that made me that way.

 

[VentureForth]

Not gonna get a lot of sympathy out of me. 10 years in engineering and I've had a whopping ZERO on more than one occassion and a couple of 1 - 2% raises. I think I met cost of living once. Had I stayed in one of those jobs, my net pay would be less today than it was when I started. My best raises came from changing companies.

I agree with Alan that I don't know the whole story. I'm sure everyone has their valid arguments. But for the sake of the company, get a contract, get a nice bonus, get a nice raise, and do your job as if it won't exist tomorrow, because that could happen. There will always be someone willing to do your job for less money. Work as hard as you can and prove your worth to the corporation as a whole.

I also believe that these talks have gone on for as long as they have because if they struck anytime between 2000 and now, there'd be no more Amtrak. I still think a strike now could hurt Amtrak severely. But, with ridership being up, a lot more folks on the outside are going to know their grievances.

 

[had8ley]

Not gonna get a lot of sympathy out of me. 10 years in engineering and I've had a whopping ZERO on more than one occassion and a couple of 1 - 2% raises. I think I met cost of living once. Had I stayed in one of those jobs, my net pay would be less today than it was when I started. My best raises came from changing companies.
I agree with Alan that I don't know the whole story. I'm sure everyone has their valid arguments. But for the sake of the company, get a contract, get a nice bonus, get a nice raise, and do your job as if it won't exist tomorrow, because that could happen. There will always be someone willing to do your job for less money. Work as hard as you can and prove your worth to the corporation as a whole.

I also believe that these talks have gone on for as long as they have because if they struck anytime between 2000 and now, there'd be no more Amtrak. I still think a strike now could hurt Amtrak severely. But, with ridership being up, a lot more folks on the outside are going to know their grievances.

I think that's the problem with those looking in; they don't know the full story. I'm sure 99% of all Amtrak employees would say that they're not looking for sympathy, just a well deserved raise. You seem to have made your own bed in a different manner by job jumping. There just might be some people at Amtrak that realize they have a good job and want to keep it.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Boston Globe has an article about the impact an Amtrak strike could have on the MBTA commuter rail system at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...e_would_rock_t/

Part of the article says:

A strike would virtually shut down South Station, forcing rail passengers to transfer onto subway lines at the Back Bay, Braintree, and Forest Hills stations. The MBTA would also have to shut down the Providence/Stoughton Line in all likelihood, forcing about 17,000 additional daily commuters to drive into town or to take alternate rail lines. North Station schedules would not be altered, but riders might see picket lines.

I'm guessing they mean that Back Bay would only be usable by Worcester/Framingham trains, and the Needham Line would run to Forest Hills, and that the Fairmount, Franklin, and Providence/Stoughton trains would shut down completely, but I'm not sure. (In theory, Franklin trains might be able to get to the Fairmount Line without interacting with the Providence Line that Amtrak controls, but then there's really no good transfer point if they can't get into South Station. I guess they could maybe run buses between South Station and Uphams Corner or something.)

I'm also kind of surprised that Forest Hills would have a usable Commuter Rail platform that Amtrak doesn't control dispatching for.

And I wonder if they really mean Braintree. I would have expected that if Amtrak only controls the parts of the system used by the Northeast Corridor trains, that Quincy Center and/or JFK/Umass would be useable; and the Greenbush line branches off a bit north of the Braintree station on the Red Line, so if the Globe was researching this carefully and writing precisely, the strike might completely disrupt service on the Greenbush line.

However, given how full a Red Line train I rode to Quincy Center last month was sometime between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a weekday (I think the crew had to ask people to back away from the train if there wasn't space at both Downtown Crossing and South Station) without a strike, losing half the Commuter Rail lines might not be a terrible strategy for keeping the subway system almost useable.

And if the strike were to go on for long enough, is it possible that service on the north side of the system might eventually be disrupted by difficulties in getting locomotives and coaches to maintenance facilities?

 

[Guest_Oldtimer2_*]

As of the date of the reccomendation of the PEB the difference between the reports wages and the offer of Amtrakis less than 2%, as to the issue of retroactive pay the PEB only recomends that current employees be paid in the past in the railroad industry those that had retired or were deceased in the time frame since the opening of negotiations and the settlements. This excludes a great number of employees. The PEB also allows Amtrak to pay only 40% this year and 60% next year. Amtrak had offered a lump sum of $4,500 this year. Some of the numbers being tossed about here are highly suspect as 30 year journeyman mechanics now make 41K a year. I doubt if the average retro will exceed 13K so 40% would be $5,200 or only $700 over Amtraks offer and if they are not able to carry over any monies from year to year they have a year to go to Congress and get the other amount needed to get to the remining retro just remember that they have $4,500 to offer in this years budget so if the have that in next years budget they only need to raise a smaller amount to cover the retro!

 

[Guest_Oldtimer2_*]

As for the work rule changes right now the shop craft unions already have an incidental work rule, this allows any work belonging to anyother craft that is incidental to the major work to be done by the craft that the major work belongs to. They also have rules that allow simple tasks to be done by any craft. The PEB pointed out that Amtrak has these rules and does not use them so why the need for drastic rule changes.

It has been eight years of stalling by Amtrak labor relations hope that the political climate will change well it did and Amtrak is still here.

EIGHT IS ENOUGH

 

[VentureForth]

Thanks for that insight, Oldtimer2. Very interesting and appropriate. After taxes, we're talking about three days wages difference between the first installment of backpay and the 'bonus'.

Had8ley - I know that you and I come from very very different employment background and culture than I. You're right - I did make my bed, and I'm happy lying in it. I may not ever understand all the intricacies of union life, but those that do swear by them.

So long as they get the job done and don't kill the company in the process, I firmly support them and would hope that they can git 'er done.

No doubt about it. Eight years is enough.

 

[AlanB]

I'm guessing they mean that Back Bay would only be usable by Worcester/Framingham trains, and the Needham Line would run to Forest Hills, and that the Fairmount, Franklin, and Providence/Stoughton trains would shut down completely, but I'm not sure. (In theory, Franklin trains might be able to get to the Fairmount Line without interacting with the Providence Line that Amtrak controls, but then there's really no good transfer point if they can't get into South Station. I guess they could maybe run buses between South Station and Uphams Corner or something.)

It's not a theory, it is reality that Franklin line trains can get to the Fairmount line without touching the corridor. The connection is a bridge over the corridor. Even now under normal operations, at least one or two rush hour Franklin line trains actually operate over the Fairmount line, rather than the corridor. The only real question is, who controls the switch off of the Franklin line that determines if the train proceeds down to the corridor or across the bridge and onto the Fairmount line? If it's Amtrak, which seems unlikely but is not impossible, then they have a problem. If it's the T, then it poses less of a problem.

However, there is still a bit of problem, in that the Fairmount line can't handle the normal traffic load that it carries, plus the load from the Franklin line. And that's with an operational South Station. I'm not sure what they can handle if South Station and all of its tracks are off limits. After all, the Fairmount still feeds into the Old Colony corridor tracks, which in many places go down to a single track. That doesn't leave a whole lot of turning room, unless they send trains to the yard.

And that poses yet another question, can the T get it's trains out of the yard? I'm guessing that they can, but I'm not sure how they can get trains over to either the Needham or the Worcester line without crossing the corridor.

I'm also kind of surprised that Forest Hills would have a usable Commuter Rail platform that Amtrak doesn't control dispatching for.

Well the Forest Hills station is on the west side of the corridor, so it is possible that at that point the T controls the track closest to the Orange line from that platform out to the branch off of the Needham line. The track on the other side of the platform though, that being the one closest to the two electrified tracks, is controlled by Amtrak. That I know for sure based upon a problem on a Franklin line train that I was riding last month.

And I wonder if they really mean Braintree. I would have expected that if Amtrak only controls the parts of the system used by the Northeast Corridor trains, that Quincy Center and/or JFK/Umass would be useable; and the Greenbush line branches off a bit north of the Braintree station on the Red Line, so if the Globe was researching this carefully and writing precisely, the strike might completely disrupt service on the Greenbush line.

I don't believe that Amtrak controls that line, at least until it gets near the Amtrak and T yards, but I'm not positive.

And if the strike were to go on for long enough, is it possible that service on the north side of the system might eventually be disrupted by difficulties in getting locomotives and coaches to maintenance facilities?

I'm not sure just how things break down regarding the T's yards, but I do know that they have a massive repair shop just north of North station. One can see it within minutes of departing from North station on the left side of the tracks, just after crossing the river.